How about “illegal immigrant?”
I ask because I have noticed – from the media 
– an effort to replace “illegal immigrant” with “undocumented immigrant,” or “undocumented alien.”
This move seems to me to be a conscious effort to minimize the aspect of law-breaking associated with the act of illegal entry into the country.
Standard-issue libertarian crapola. It’s simply more efficient to help people by pooling our resources in the form of taxation and spending it to improve the lot of our fellow man than it is to wait for individuals to step forward.
Why do we shy away from the term “illegal immigrant”? Because they’re people and deserve to be treated with dignity.
All criminals are people.
8 year olds running away from gang violence in their home countries are not criminals. Righties love the term “illegal immigrants” because it’s dehumanizing.
Not all children fleeing across borders are criminals.
O.k. Maybe, legally. they may be. Is the legal definition the first thing that springs to mind when you think of children fleeing across a border to safety, Bricker?
If not “religious conviction” (as measured by the distance between professed and actual standards), what, then, is the basis for distinguishing a legitimate religious organization from a sham operation set up to obtain a fraudulent tax exemption?
Turning away children in need is abhorrent. Turning away children despite being a Christian is apparently easy to weasel through, but I hope turning away children BECAUSE of being a Christian is never going to be right.
I’m glad my government is taking care of them and trying to find them good homes, including sending them back to their countries if that’s what is best for them, and not drowning them like unwanted kittens in the Rio Grande.
The Catholic stance on “illegal” immigration is not the same as Bricker’s. Surprise, surprise.
Go ahead, find some more hairs to split.
As for the AFA, they’re nothing but pharisees, but it’s up to God to condemn them, not us.
/another Christian perspective
//maybe not right, but another
This cannot be avoided, so long as the government insists on doling out particular privileges. Once they do that, as I noted in my previous comment, they must necessarily determine who is following a genuine religious conviction and who is attending the church of “I don’t wanna pay taxes” or (formerly) “I’d rather not go to Vietnam”.
I’m staring at this post, trying to discern the operation of a mind keen enough to suggest that whether or not a person is a criminal depends upon something beyond “legality.”
Yup, that’s what you said.
And perhaps you could have even made a case for defending the apparently outrageous claim, pointing out that some children may lack the requisite intent to break laws, and some may be able to claim a defense of necessity. Those defenses are part of the legal framework, though, and so I guess you wanted to avoid them to promote your larger, grander concept, that maybe, “legally” speaking, a criminal might just possibly, if you squint, be a person who breaks the law.
The government is perfectly able to determine whether a particular claimant is sincere – that is, if they are telling the truth about what they believe.
This is not the same as determining if their belief is legitimate Christianity, since the government is generally forbidden from expressing an opinion on the accuracy of a religious matter of faith.
Do you see the distinction?
That’s amusing.
Frank sez:
Why don’t you two fight it out, and I’ll debate the winner?
This post, like most of what you have posted in this thread, is just crap meant to divert people away from the main issues. It all boils down which problem you see:
What you don’t seem to comprehend is the utter amazement some of us have that a so-called Christian organization can write such a letter that shows not a hint of compassion, charity, understanding or compromise. No alternate solutions or charities are suggested. They have dismissed entirely problem #1 and have decided to focus entirely on problem #2.
Yeah, Bricker. you are legally correct, and in a court of law you would be ethically correct. Whoopty fucking shit. Those are still children fleeing for safety across the border, and they need our help. the AFA be damned.
Well, it’s obvious I don’t share a great deal of common ground with the AFA, although we both identify as Christians. I absolutely agree that we cannot simply abandon these children to war, disease, or famine, even though their presence here is the result of a deliberate misinformation campaign.
But while this is my view as a voting citizen and as a Catholic, I don’t believe that the broad range of beliefs and practices that constitute “Christianity” can be fairly said to compel that result.
So I don’t agree that a person, or an organization, cannot hold both a self-identification as Christian and a belief that these children should be unceremoniously returned to their native lands. It’s not a flavor of Christianity I’d personally find compelling, but it’s by no means impossible.
No, it’s not impossible…but show you’re human and flip a bird in the right direction-they don’t need lawyers, they need more people getting pissed at them.
On a board that supposedly has some interest in fighting ignorance, you seem to be urging me to overlook the spurious claims about AFA somehow violating core tenets of Christianity – an expression of ignorance – and instead simply join in their general condemnation.
Sometimes the correct response does not require prolonged inspection or precise categorization.
That was already done by Try2B Comprehensive back on the first page.
Bricker said it didn’t apply to HIM because he’s Catholic and special and doesn’t solely believe the Bible. However, the AFA is Protestant, and states that the Bible is infallible.
So Bricker has a thread all about him and his fun playing technicalities for his own amusement but none of that has anything to do with the AFA’s actions being against their stated beliefs. However, hypocrisy is everywhere, so maybe he’s just being existential about “Christianity.”
The correct response always requires accuracy.
I’ve seen people of very limited intellectual capacity behave in a kindly and generous fashion. And even more frequently, I’ve witnessed people of exceptional intellectual gifts whore out that intellect to support inhumane and repugnant opinions.